The Effect of Critical Thinking Disposition on Entrepreneurship Levels: A Study on Future Teachers

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207

INTE 2014

The effect of critical thinking disposition on entrepreneurship levels: A study on future teachers Merve Kırbaşlara*, Zeliha Özsoy-Güneşb a Istanbul University, School of Business, Department of Human Resources Management, Avcılar, Istanbul, Turkey Istanbul University, Hasan Ali Yücel Faculty of Education, Department of Science Education, Vefa, Istanbul, Turkey

b

Abstract The aim of this research is to study the relations between Critical Thinking Dispositions and entrepreneurship levels of future teachers and to evaluate them in terms of some demographic variables. Relational scanning model weree used in this study. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) developed by Facione, Facione &Giancarlo (1998) and adapted to Turkish by Kökdemir (2003), Entrepreneurship Scale (ES) developed by Yılmaz & Sünbül (2009) were used as the data collection tool. The sample of this study is formed by 548 pre-services from Science, elementary school, mathematics, social studies Education, Department of Faculty of Education. In order to analyze the data, ANOVA, independent group t-test, Pearson correlation coefficient analysis, regression analysis were used. Between scales has been found a positive correlation. It has been seen that critical thinking dispositions have a significant effect on entrepreneurship levels. There are statistically significant differences on gender, high school and department variables in terms of CCTDI. Also, statistically significant differences were determined on grades in terms of ES. Click insertPublished your abstract text. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2015here The and Authors. by Elsevier © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-reviewunder underresponsibility responsibility of the Sakarya University. Peer-review of the Sakarya University Keywords:Critical Thinking Abilities, Entrepreneurship, Future Teachers.

1. Introduction Entrepreneurship is a comprehensive concept which is an substantial element of all economies in the world. Entrepreneurs are crucial to make contributions to the nations through creating new economic activity. It strengthens

* Corresponding author: Merve Kırbaşlar E-mail address:[email protected]

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.647

200

Merve Kırbaşlar and Zeliha Özsoy-Güneş / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207

competition between developed economies and has potential economic benefits for society as a whole (Soriano, 2011). Entrepreneurs procure job opportunities for the unemployed, endorse innovation and creativity. Although the origin of the term “entrepreneur” has been traced to famous economist and author Richard Cantillon in 1755, entrepreneurship is still broadly discussed by many scholars. The definition has gone beyond merely creating new businesses (Gartner, 2010) and transformed into a process of seeking opportunities which includes creative, innovative and risk taking individuals, intentions and environmental factors (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; McKenzie, Ugbah & Smothers, 2007). Entrepreneurism is to create a value by engendering a novelty, using creative skills or by finding a new production, service, source, technology or markets in other ways (Bird,1989). In this context it can be seen that in entrepreneurism concept factors like: novelty, alteration, flexibility, dynamism, taking risks, creativity and focusing on improvement are affective (Korkmaz,2000). Successful entrepreneurs possess characteristics such as desire for success, creativity, enthusiasm, risk taking, self confidence, locus of control, vision, persuasiveness, adaptability, determination, assertiveness, optimism, imagination, other motivational factors and personal values (Khan, 1986; Raposo, Do Paço & Ferreira, 2008). As it is seen, entrepreneurship requires a unique personality and a mind-set. Decision making has gained a major significance in the age of information. The way of thinking has been debated over the years and critical thinking abilities came forward in the literature. The term critical thinking refers to the use of cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome, evaluating the outcomes of thought processes, how good a decision is or how well a problem is solved (Halpern, 1998). Critical Thinking can be defined as an effective, organized and operative cognitive period enabling us to improve understanding our own thoughts and others ideas and our skill to explain the opinions (Chaffe, 1994). According to various researches, evidence show that individuals are able to gain critical thinking abilities through proper guidance. Therefore, future teachers’ thinking abilities can be enhanced if it is possible to consider notions such as looking for novel approaches and reject myths (Pithers & Soden, 2010). Considering the fact that entrepreneurship has evolved from mere business meaning into creating innovative ideas and processes, teachers might also benefit from the concept. Considering all these changes, it is necessary that countries should rearrange their educational programs. In this context, in Turkey as well, the updated teaching programs encourage critical thinking, creative thinking, communication, research- questioning, problem solving, information technologies, entrepreneurship and using Turkish language correctly and effectively with an approach that puts the students in focus point (MEB, 2005). One of the basic skills in primary school programs, entrepreneurship is one of the key factors for individuals to reach information, use and apply information in new situations (Aytaç, 2006). Along with this, the entrepreneurship skills of students are related to the personal and occupational qualifications and entrepreneurship skills of their teachers (Bacanak, Ülküdür & Öner, 2012). 2. The Aim of the Research The aim of this research is to study the relations between critical thinking dispositions and entrepreneurship levels of future teachers and to evaluate them in terms of some demographic variables. 3. Hypothesises Hypothesis 1: Critical thinking gispositions levels of teacher candidates differentiate according to the varieties of gender, department, class, and graduated secondary school. Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneurship levels of teacher candidates differentiate according to the varieties of gender, department, class, and graduated secondary school. Hypothesis 3: Critical thinking dispositions have a significant effect on entrepreneurship Levels of teacher candidates.

Merve Kırbaşlar and Zeliha Özsoy-Güneş / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207

201

4. Methods of the Research In this study, quantitative research method and relational screening model has been used. 4.1. Sample of the Research The sample of this study is formed by 548 teacher candidates from departments of science, social studies, elementary school, mathematics at Education Faculty. 167 of participants (30.5%) were from the department of science, 129 of them (23.5%) were from the department of elementary school, 143 of them (26.1%) were from the department of mathematics, 109 of them (19.9%) were from the department of social studies, 397 of the participants (72.4%) were female and 151 of them (27.6%) were male. 4.2. Data Collection Instruments Data collection tool consists of three parts. In the first part personal data such as the gender, department and graduated secondary school have been collected. Second part includes The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI-R) which is developed by Facione, Facione & Giancarlo (1998) and adapted to Turkish by Kökdemir (2003). Third part includes Entrepreneurship Scale (ES) which is developed by Yılmaz & Sünbül (2009) The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI-R): As a data collection tool, The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) was developed by Facione, Facione & Giancarlo (1998) and was translated and validated in Turkish by Kökdemir (2003) has been used. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which shows internal consistency for the dimensions of the CCTDI-R were calculated as .75 in analycity dimension, .75 in openmindedness dimension, .78 in inquisitiveness dimension, .77 in self-confidence dimension, .61 in truth-seeking dimension, and .63 in systematicity dimension. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the latest scale which was translated in Turkish by Kökdemir (2003) and has six dimensions and 51 items was calculated as .88. The scale was prepared as six – point Likert scale. Six-point Likert type scale shows “totally agree” option 6, “disagree” option 1 point. Sixpoint Likert type scale responses were collected. Raw scores were calculated for total scale and each factor. The raw scores were divided by the number of questions. In this way, the lowest value 1, and the highest value 6 standard scores are obtained. (Kökdemir, 2003). Entrepreneurship Scale (ES): In the study; “Entrepreneurship Scale (ES)” which is developed by Yılmaz &Sünbül (2009) to determine students’ entrepreneurship levels was used as the data collection tool. The scale was prepared as five–point Likert type scale. The factor analysis of the questionnaire responses using Principal Component Analysis resulted in 36 items which loaded on one factor. Cronbach Alpha coefficient was of found to be α=0.90. The minimum and the maximum score that can be taken from the scale are between 36-180. Entrepreneurship points based on the following criteria were included in the evaluation. Points 36-64 65-92 93-123 124-151 152-180

ES Evaluation Very low entrepreneurship low entrepreneurship Mid-level entrepreneurship High entrepreneurship Very high entrepreneurship

3.3. Analyzing Data SPSS 16.00 is used to analyze the data. ANOVA, independent group t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test have been conducted to monitor the scores taken from the scales in terms of demographic varieties. PEARSON correlation coefficient analysis technique and Regression Analysis are applied in order to observe the relations between scales. In all statistical processes significance at a level of .05 has been seeked.

202

Merve Kırbaşlar and Zeliha Özsoy-Güneş / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207

5. Findings The sample of this study is formed by 548 students from Education Faculty. In this study, the taken total The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI-R) scale score was calculated as 4.1926 . The minimum and the maximum score that can be taken from the Entrepreneurship Scale (ES) are between 36-180. In this study, the taken total Entrepreneurship Scale (ES) score was calculated as 155.4394 (Table 1). Table 1. Distribution of scores of teacher candidates taken from CCTDI-R scale according to the factors and Entrepreneurship Scale. Scale

CCTDI-R Scale

X 4.3595 3.9256 4.3112 4.2242 4.2500 4.1670 4.1926 131.3412

Analyticity Open-Mindedness Inquisitiveness Self-Confidence Truth-Seeking Systemacity CCTDI-R Scale Total ES Total Score

SD .55778 .49588 .55864 .58454 .66410 .63790 .43277 20.25600

SE .02383 .02118 .02386 .02497 .02837 .02725 .01849 .86529

As in table 2, as a result of independent group T-test applied to define whether the scores taken from the CCTDIR scale and factors differentiate according to the gender variable; for the CCTDI-R scale total score and all factor scores the difference between the arithmetic average of the groups have been found statistically significant. Female students’ score average is significantly higher than the Male students (p<.05). The result of independent group t-test applied to define whether the scores taken from the Entrepreneurship Scale differentiate according to the gender variable; for the Entrepreneurship Scale total score the difference between the arithmetic average of the groups have not been found statistically significant (p>.05). In this study, independent groups t-test and ANOVA have been used to test the hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2. Table 2. The results of Independent group t-test of the scores taken from CCTDI-R scale and factors and Entrepreneurship Scale according to the gender variable of teacher candidates. Scale Analyticity Open-Mindedness Inquisitiveness CCTDI-R Scale Self-Confidence Truth-Seeking Systemacity CCTDI-R Scale Total ES Total Score

Group Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

N

X

SD

397 4.4552 .53135 151 4.1079 .54888 397 3.9652 .48780 151 3.8217 .50351 397 4.3602 .54510 151 4.1825 .57497 397 4.2814 .56761 151 4.0738 .60336 397 4.3235 .66151 151 4.0568 .63333 397 4.2338 .63007 151 3.9912 .62680 397 4.2551 .41877 151 4.0283 .42721 397 131.7582 20.10822 151 130.2450 20.66687

SE .02667 .04467 .02448 .04098 .02736 .04679 .02849 .04910 .03320 .05154 .03162 .05101 .02102 .03477 1.00920 1.68185

t

t-test df

p

6.773

546

.000

3.048

546

.002

3.358

546

.001

3.759

546

.000

4.266

546

.000

4.034

546

.000

5.634

546

.000

.781

546

.435

As seen in Table 3 as a result of ANOVA which is done in order to determine whether the scores taken from the Profound Approach and Superficial Approach factors show a significant difference according to the department variable; for the superficial approach factor scores the difference between the arithmetic average of the group has been found statistically significant but the difference has been found to be insignificant for the profound approach factor. Following this process Post-Hoc analysis techniques are started to be applied.

203

Merve Kırbaşlar and Zeliha Özsoy-Güneş / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207

After ANOVA; to determine the changes in CCTDI-R scale and factors among sub-groups, considering the department variable, LSD test has been chosen from among the post-hoc analysis techniques; because of Analyticity, Open-Mindedness, Inquisitiveness, Self-Confidence, Systemacity factors and CCTDI-R Scale group variance are homogen according to the Levene’s test (L=1.522, L=.735, L=.725, L=.565, L=.565, L=.859, p>.05), Tamhane test has been chosen from among the post-hoc analysis techniques; because of Truth-Seekingfactor group variance are not homogen according to the Levene’s test (L=2.856, p<.05). As a result of this test it has been stated that, Science Education students’ score are significantly higher than all other department students' score for Analyticity, Inquisitiveness, Self-Confidence, Truth-Seeking Factors and CCTDI-R Scale total score, Science Education students’ score are significantly higher than Elementary School and Mathematics Education department students’ score for the Open-Mindedness Factor scores, Science Education students’ score are significantly higher than Elementary School and Social Studies Education department students’ score for the Systemacity Factor scores. As a result of non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test which is done in order to determine whether the scores taken from the Entrepreneurship Scale show a significant difference according to the department variable; for scale scores the difference between the arithmetic average of the group has been found to be insignificant statistically (χ2=6.525, Sd=3, p>.05). Table 3. The results of ANOVA applied to define whether the scores taken from CCTDI-R scale and factors differentiate according to the department variable of teacher candidates. N, X and SD Values CCTDI-R Scale and Factors

Analyticity

OpenMindedness

Inquisitiveness

SelfConfidence

Truth-Seeking

Systemacity

CCTDI-R Scale Total Score

ANOVA Results

Group

N

X

SD

Var. K.

SS

df

MS

Science Education Elementary School Education Mathematics Education Social Studies Education Science Education Elementary School Education Mathematics Education Social Studies Education Science Education Elementary School Education Mathematics Education Social Studies Education Science Education Elementary School Education Mathematics Education Social Studies Education Science Education Elementary School Education Mathematics Education Social Studies Education Science Education Elementary School Education Mathematics Education Social Studies Education Science Education Elementary School Education

167

4.5108

.53290

Between

6.224

3

2.075

129

4.2357

.59841

Within

163.957

544

.301

143 109 167

4.3070 4.3431 4.0120

.50262 .57015 .52300

Total

170.181

547

Between

2.097

3

.699

129

3.8598

.49366

Within

132.407

544

.243

143 109 167

3.8805 3.9304 4.5090

.47032 .47528 .53639

Total

134.504

547

Between

9.801

3

3.267

129

4.1860

.58369

Within

160.907

544

.296

143 109 167

4.2253 4.2691 4.4055

.50246 .55849 .61541

Total

170.708

547

Between

9.507

3

3.169

129

4.1849

.56958

Within

177.398

544

.326

143 109 167

4.1868 4.0419 4.4380

.53351 .54927 .67992

Total

186.905

547

Between

10.027

3

3.342

129

4.1008

.64147

Within

231.213

544

.425

143 109 167

4.2468 4.1429 4.2605

.56056 .72765 .65516

Total

241.240

547

Between

3.464

3

1.155

129

4.0943

.64947

Within

219.120

544

.403

143 109 167

4.2016 4.0642 4.3392

.55272 .68377 .43846

Total

222.583

547

Between

5.395

3

1.798

129

4.0964

.43557

Within

97.055

544

.178

F

p

6.883

.000

2.872

.036

11.045

.000

9.718

.000

7.864

.000

2.866

.036

10.079

.000

204

Merve Kırbaşlar and Zeliha Özsoy-Güneş / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207 Mathematics Education Social Studies Education

143 109

4.1551 4.1313

.38411 .42933

Total

102.450

547

As a result of ANOVA which is done in order to determine whether the scores taken from the CCTDI-R scale and factors show a significant difference according to the class variable; the difference between the arithmetic averages of the group has been found to be insignificant statistically. As seen in table 4 as a result of ANOVA which is done in order to determine whether the Entrepreneurship Scale show a significant difference according to the class variable; the difference between the arithmetic averages of the group has been found statistically significant. Following this process Post-Hoc analysis techniques were applied. After ANOVA; to determine the changes in Entrepreneurship Scale among sub-groups, considering the class variable, LSD test has been chosen from among the post-hoc analysis techniques; because of group variance are homogeny according to the Levene’s test (L=1.759, p>.05). As a result of this test it has been stated that senior students’ score are significantly higher than all other class students' score for Entrepreneurship Scale total score. Table 4. The results of ANOVA applied to define whether the scores taken from Entrepreneurship Scale differentiate according to the class variable of teacher candidates. N,X and SS Values Group

ANOVA Results

N

X

SS

Var. K.

SS

df

MS

1.Grade

161

130.0497

20.89402

Between

2.Grade

133

128.0000

20.74009

Within

8955.104

3

2985.035

215482.083

544

3.Grade

396.107

129

129.3178

18.16848

Total

224437.188

547

4.Grade

125

138.6480

19.38583

F

p

7.536

.000

As seen in table 5 as a result of ANOVA which is done in order to determine whether the CCTDI-R scale and factors show a significant difference according to the graduated secondary school variable; for scale total score and Analyticity, Inquisitiveness, Truth-Seeking factors scores the difference between the arithmetic average of the group has been found statistically significant. Following this process Post-Hoc analysis techniques are started to be applied. After ANOVA; to determine how changed in CCTDI-R scale and factors among sub-groups, considering the graduated secondary school variable, LSD test has been chosen from among the post-hoc analysis techniques; because of Analyticity, Inquisitiveness, Truth-Seeking factors and CCTDI-R Scale group variance are homogeny according to the Levene’s test (L=.415, L=.537, L=.009, L=.208, p>.05). As a result of this test it has been stated that, graduated public high school and anatolian high school students’ score are significantly higher than graduated teacher high school students' score for Analyticity, Inquisitiveness, Truth-Seeking Factors and CCTDI-R Scale total score. As a result, for scale scores the difference between the arithmetic averages of the group has been found to be insignificant statistically. As a result of Pearson Multiplication Momentum Correlation Analysis, conducted to define the relations between the CCTDI-R scale and factors and Entrepreneurship Scale score have a significant positive relation (Table 6). In order to determine whether there is a significant effect of CCTDI-R scores on entrepreneurship scale, linear regression analysis has been conducted. Is has been seen that critical thinking dispositions have a significant effect on entrepreneurship levels(R=0.507, R2=0.257, F=188.766, p<.01). According to the results, 25.7% of the variation in entrepreneurship levels is explained by the variation in critical thinking dispositions (Table 7) Therefore,

Merve Kırbaşlar and Zeliha Özsoy-Güneş / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207

hypothesis 3 is accepted.

Table 5. The results of Independent group t-test of the scores taken from SRLS scale and factors according to the gender variable of students. N, X and SD Values ANOVA Results CCTDI-R Scale Group N X SD Var. K. SS df MS F p and Factors Public High School 161 4.4267 .54701 Between 3.589 3 1.196 Anatolian High 152 4.4257 .54475 Within 166.592 544 .306 School Analyticity 3.907 .009 Teacher High School 191 4.2524 .54991 Total 170.181 547 Others 44 4.3500 .61851 Public High School 161 3.9705 .51786 Between .980 3 .327 Anatolian High 152 3.9474 .47089 Within 133.525 544 .245 OpenSchool 1.331 .264 Mindedness Teacher High School 191 3.8914 .51022 Total 134.504 547 Others 44 3.8352 .42244 Public High School 161 4.3658 .57409 Between 4.715 3 1.572 Anatolian High 152 4.4057 .55049 Within 165.992 544 .305 Inquisitiveness School 5.151 .002 Teacher High School 191 4.1885 .52540 Total 170.708 547 Others 44 4.3182 .59164 Public High School 161 4.2724 .61400 Between 1.836 3 .612 Anatolian High 152 4.2707 .57241 Within 185.069 544 .340 Self-Confidence School 1.799 .146 Teacher High School 191 4.1750 .54912 Total 186.905 547 Others 44 4.1006 .64669 Public High School 161 4.3301 .65839 Between 3.605 3 1.202 Anatolian High 152 4.3073 .66738 Within 237.634 544 .437 Truth-Seeking School 2.751 .042 Teacher High School 191 4.1488 .65479 Total 241.240 547 Others 44 4.1981 .67445 Public High School 161 4.1843 .64269 Between .615 3 .205 Anatolian High 152 4.2061 .62028 Within 221.969 544 .408 School Systemacity .502 .681 Teacher High School 191 4.1326 .62933 Total 222.583 547 Others 44 4.1174 .72388 Public High School 161 4.2456 .43980 Between 2.093 3 .698 Anatolian High 152 4.2463 .41946 Within 100.356 544 .184 CCTDI-R Scale School 3.783 .010 Total Score Teacher High School 191 4.1172 .42633 Total 102.450 547 Others 44 4.1408 .43949 Table 6. Pearson Multiplication Momentum Correlation Analysis Results conducted to define factors relations of the scales. CCTDI-R scale and Factors

Entrepreneurship Scale

Analyticity Open-Mindedness Inquisitiveness Self-Confidence Truth-Seeking Systemacity CCTDI-R scale

r=.286(**) r=.323(**) r=.441(**) r=.452(**) r=.456(**) r=.387(**) r=.507(**)

205

206

Merve Kırbaşlar and Zeliha Özsoy-Güneş / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207 Table 7. Analysis Results related to entrepreneurship levels Model B Constant .885 CCTDI-R scale .659 R=0.507 R2=0.257 F(1,546)=188.766 P=0.000

Std Error .202 .048

β .507

T 4.380 13.739

P .000 .000

r .507

6. Results It has been seen that the teacher candidates included to the research have very high entrepreneurship levels with the score of 155.4394. One of the sub-problems of the research is whether there is a differentiation on entrepreneurship levels and critical thinking dispositions according to the varieties of gender, department, class, and graduated secondary school. The statistical evidence shows that or the CCTDI-R scale total score and all factor scores the difference between the arithmetic averages of the groups have been found statistically significant. Female teacher candidates’ score average is significantly higher than the male teacher candidates. On the other hand, for the Entrepreneurship Scale total score the difference between the arithmetic averages of the groups have not been found statistically significant in terms of gender. Furthermore, for critical thinking dispositions scale total score and all factors scores, the difference between the arithmetic averages of the group has been found statistically significant. Science Education students’ score are significantly higher than all other department students' score for Analyticity, Inquisitiveness, Self-Confidence, Truth-Seeking Factors and CCTDI-R Scale total score, Science Education students’ score are significantly higher than Elementary School and Mathematics Education department students’ score for the Open-Mindedness Factor scores, Science Education students’ score are significantly higher than Elementary School and Social Studies Education department students’ score for the Systemacity Factor scores. This might show the differences between methods and perspectives of those disciplines. Another important result is that senior students’ score are significantly higher than all other class students' score for Entrepreneurship Scale total score. It might be interpreted into the awareness of employment opportunities as students approach to graduation. It has been stated that, graduated public high school and Anatolian high school students’ score are significantly higher than graduated teacher high school students' score for Analyticity, Inquisitiveness, Truth-Seeking Factors and CCTDI-R Scale total score. As we argued before, the results show that there is a correlation between critical thinking dispositions and entrepreneurship levels of teacher candidates. Also, there is evidence that critical thinking dispositions have a significant effect on entrepreneurship levels. For further research, other variables related to entrepreneurship levels might be examined. Additionally, teacher candidates in various disciplines might be included to further investigations. References Aytaç, Ö. (2006). Girişimcilik. Sosyo-kültürel bir perspektif. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15, 139-160. Bacanak, A., Ülküdür, M. A. & Öner, F. (2012). Fen ve Teknolojidersi öğretmenlerinin girişimcilik becerisi ve etkisi ile ilgili görüşleri: Nitel bir araştırma. X. Ulusal fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. Bird, B. J. (1989). Entrepreneurial behaviour, Illinois: Foresman and Company. Chaffee, J. (1994). Thinking critically, Boston: Houghton Mifflin,. Facione, P.A., Facione, N. C.& Giancarlo, C.A.F. (1998). The California critical thinking disposition inventory. California: Academic Press. Gartner, W. B. (2010). A new path to the waterfall: A narrative on a use of entrepreneurial narrative. International Small Business Journal, 28(1), 6-19. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449.

Merve Kırbaşlar and Zeliha Özsoy-Güneş / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 199 – 207 Khan, A. M. (1986). Entrepreneur characteristics and the prediction of new venture success. Omega, 14(5), 365-372. Korkmaz, S. (2000), Girişimcilik ve üniversite öğrencilerinin girişimcilik özelliklerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 18(1), 163-169. Kökdemir, D. (2003). Belirsizlik durumlarında karar verme ve problem çözme. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Psikoloji Anabilim Dalı. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). McKenzie, B., Ugbah, S. D., & Smothers, N. (2007). Who is an entrepreneur? Is it still the wrong question?Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(1). MEB (2005). İlköğretim 1-5. sınıf programları tanıtım el kitabı, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, TTKB, Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü Basımevi. Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237-249. Raposo, M., do Paço, A., & Ferreira, J. (2008). Entrepreneur's profile: A taxonomy of attribu tes and motivations of university students. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 405-418. Stevenson, H. H.& Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic management journal, 11(5), 1727. Soriano, D. R.& MontoroǦSanchez, M. A. (2011). Introduction: The challenges of defining and studying contemporary entrepreneurship. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration,28(3), 297-301. Yılmaz, E. & Sünbül, A. M. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerine yönelik girişimcilik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21, 195-203.

207